Who will come out and say, publicly, Joe’s not welcome back in the tent, that doing Republican GOTV against Democrats is beyond the pale, not forgivable? Who will stand up as the first true Democrat of principle?

Will it be John Kerry?

Or John Edwards?

Or Frank Lautenberg?

Or Russ Feingold?

Hillary Clinton?

Al Gore?

Nancy Pelosi?

Rahm Emanuel?

Howard Dean?

Bill Clinton?

Who?

Let’s keep score, take names and make some phone calls next week. Harry Reid deserves pressure, but so do all the others, especially those in the Senate. Once one person comes out to say that Joe has left the party and is not welcome back, I’ll bet others will follow.

It’s time to expand the target field. Wouldn’t you expect one of the 2008 hopefuls to want to be the first Principled Pioneer on this? Since Joe has cut and run from, you know, Democratic voters and the Democratic Party, shouldn’t leading Democrats fall over each other to show us voters some stand and fight bona fides? I’m just sayin’.

Does anyone know what the actual process is to strip a duly elected Democratic Party Senator of his or her seniority?

That is, if I wanted to strip Joe (or anyone else) of his seniority what needs to be done? Specifically, who (or what group) gets to decide? What specific grounds for removal are recognized? How long will the process take?

joe doesn’t believe in the Democratic process, he’s already proved that. The danger still lies that joe wants to be a martyr. He didn’t come by the name holy joe for nothing. Ned can challenge him because he’s the opponent, now that he’s a non-combatant Gore could challenge him. Of course I still think that we could send him a cookbook-Chicken Feces for the Soul or something similar.

Pelosi’s got some odd dynamics going on. As Dem leader in the House, she’s got every right to be more than a little ticked at Joe for not just backing away from the Dem House candidates in CT but also actively campaigning with their republican opponents. On the other hand, as the rep from SF, she’s had to speak not only for herself but also those members of the Dem caucus who don’t want to be labelled as “SF democrats” either because they are more conservative or represent more conservative districts. (Although IMHO, “SF Dem” is a badge of honor – right TeddySF, punaise, and the rest of us out here?)

Bottom line – I think she’d like to do it, she’d really like to do it, but she’s got to be second or third, not first.

Boxer? Feinstein? Don’t make me laugh.

An alternative to booting Joe completely would be to “censure” Joe for rejecting the party primary result and working against the House Dems in retaking control of that body. If done now, it might make Joe think twice about any repeat campaign appearances at the very least. It also puts the onus back on Lieberman, to answer the question “are you or are you not a Democrat?” If the censure carried with it a warning – veiled or otherwise – that continued rejection of the party would likely result in further sanction when the next Senate organized itself (ie, office in the basement, last choice of committees, etc.), it might get Joe to either put up or shut up.

This kind of resolution might get some of the Senate Dems off the fence, and it’s the kind of thing they could put out there without feeling like they’ve kicked someone out.

Does anyone know what the actual process is to strip a duly elected Democratic Party Senator of his or her seniority?

That is, if I wanted to strip Joe (or anyone else) of his seniority what needs to be done? Specifically, who (or what group) gets to decide? What specific grounds for removal are recognized? How long will the process take?

Does anyone here know?

Who does it? – the party caucus within the body (house or senate)
What grounds? – Some written stuff, but mostly any grounds they choose to apply. Generally this has been done in the past when the criminal process is moving too slowly to push someone aside and the party doesn’t want to get dragged down by association (visualize the ads running against them: “They tolerate lawbreakers in that caucus . . .”)
How fast? – As fast as seems expedient and appropriate.

All in all, it’s pretty slippery or flexible, depending on your point of view. It goes back to the “organization of the House/Senate” resolution that gets passed at the beginning of each session, setting up the number of seats on each committee for each party.

All this is from watching the process at a distance, not from having been part of it. Corrections, clarifications, amendments and extensions of these remarks are not only in order but are strongly encouraged.

Please forgive a moment of blogwhoring. If you wanted to participate in that Political Spectrum blog article I am working on, please click on my name, and go to my blog, and scroll down and read the instructions (should take someone about 5ish minutes of their time). I will stop tracking new data this Sunday night, the 27th.

If you already did the questionnaire and reported the results, thanks for helping!

OT: I read in New Orleans City Business that there is a real shortage of poll workers for the upcoming election. Since being a poll worker is a way to “fight the right” and all that, I thought I would post the link to the article here for NOLA folks. If you can volunteer please do so.

I really think Holy Joe has more than demonstrated that he will not back down no matter what happens. His wounded ego and pride won’t allow it, and he would never take any sort of risk to bring that kind of shame to his new Republican Family. He’s lost his marbles.

LieberLIAR is REFUSING to endorse the Dem congressional candidates in Conn, now because he says they are supporting his opponent Ned Lamont…TIME TO THROW THE TROLL OUT….get busy on those phones…let’s not let up!

I’m a bit wary of the “purge” criticisms that have been leveled at the Joester. That said, I think it’s just fine that if he drops out of the race and “remains a Democrat” that there are no hard feelings, but running under a different non-party should surely trigger some party mechanisms.

It will come in stages. It’s more effective that way. The steady drum beat of endorsements of Lamont and the steady criticism and ultimate censure of Lieberman. Yeah, it could have happened on Wednesday morning but to less effect.

Sorry, Pach, but I still think this is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.

If someone is self destructing, you don’t need to be seen shooting them! Joe is self-destructing.

JL’s actions today provide still more reasons for party officials to say, “I don’t agree with what he’s doing by not supporting our candidates and appearing at campaign events with Republicans,” when asked what they think of Joe not endorsing the Dem candidates. They can say, “I fully support our candidates and I’m glad to see Ned Lamont, our candidate, fully supporting them too. I support Lamont.” That’s what Joe just gave us, and we should take it.

Tommorrow, Joe will do something else, because he’s in a spiral, and that will be another opportunity. I think patience will pay off, while demanding the whole thing immediately will not. In fact, if nothing else were to happen, I would predict that virtually none of the people on your list will do what you’re suggesting, and if one or two do, they will be isolated by others, who will feel forced to say, “we don’t agree.”

Lamont’s friendly meeting with Senator Clinton will signal to the old power brokers of the Democratic Party that Lieberman is toast. Hillary took the first step Election Night with her $5000 to Ned in dumping Lieberman …

Too bad that Tom Cruise is such a jerk. I like a lot of his movies. For me it doesn’t get much better than “A Few Good Men”. Though I think Demi Moore and J.T. Walsh stole the show. The late great J.T. Walsh. Did you know Walsh was a social worker, junior high school teacher and former president of the political organization, SDS, Students for a Democratic Society before becoming an actor? Walsh played right-wingers to a tee. Ronald Reagan absolutely hated Walsh’s SDS.

Plame – I still don’t get why Rove isn’t on the playlist for the Libby trial.

Lieberman – I think that it looks like “mean girls” stuff that will get attributed back to Lamont, unless there is an important issue coming up between now andNov where Lieberman just can’t really be trusted. JMO, fwiw

Holy Joe’s refusal to endorse the capture of Republican House seats by Democrats is an astounding blunder. How could he be so oblivious to the wrath he’d incur? It rivals his oblivousness to the chaos of Iraq.

inthedoghouse….this has NOTHING to do with lamont…this has to do with WHAT IS RIGHT…..we need to be strong as a party and letting LieberLIAR walk all over the other Dems in his state is a disgrace….

No one is advocating letting Joe “walk all over the other Dems” in your state. The question is, what’s the best way to turn the fact that he did walk all over them against Joe, so that (1) he loses to Lamont [yes, this is about Lamont] and (2) the other Dems win?

‘Predicting is hard, especially the future.’ Who said that, Yogi Berra, or some mayor? Anyway, since the naive hippy whiney juvenile lefty blogs and their associated commentators are batting about 1000 on predicting Joe’s behavior, and the very wise grown-up responsible and very knowing corporate Dems are batting about zero, when will some very very wise grown-up responsible and very knowing corporate media pundits notice? Will it change their minds some, or will they stick with there usual reasoning? IMO, their usual reasoning would be that recent history proves how the very wise grown-up responsible and very knowing (VWGURAVK) the usual gang of idiots (UGOI) is . Yeesh, even some one like me can learn! Just exactly what more does this weasel need to do?

As for Lieberman’s campaign: got content yet? You, know, about stuff like, oh… you know… war and peace, terrorism policy, non-proliferation economics, wages… Not that I’ve heard. Maybe no time for that trivia after bogus gotcha, smearball, and tactical backstab games.

But it occurs to me that Joe has gone McCain on us, so there is some content on Iraq, terrorism and non-proliferation and Middle East: Bomb ‘em. Except McCain can at least show that his brain works to some extent and he can explain why that approach probably won’t work well at all before we go ahead and do it anyway. Because not doing that will look weak, even if it won’t work. That is how one gets strong, stays strong, and looks strong, you know, doing stuff that looks strong even though it doesn’t work. See, it works in reality even though that script would get lauged at in a movie.

I have to say Feingold too. He’ll finally get exasperated again with the lack of truth and leadership. He’s the only one that has the real nads to speak up, just like he did with the censure resolution.

I have to say Feingold too. He’ll finally get exasperated again with the lack of truth and leadership. He’s the only one that has the real nads to speak up, just like he did with the censure resolution.

If I were a betting man I would not bet on any big political name demanding that Joe not caucus with the Dems should he win in November. They may do it in private and amongst themselves, but I seriously doubt there will be a public demand.

You can say they are a bunch of cowards and be correct, but the political calculus of taking such a step on a presumptive event happening in the future is not in the nature of these extraordinarily attuned political denizens.

I think the best we can expect is for as many senior Dems as possible to endorse Lamont, throw him some real support, and shun Lieberman.

Does anyone know what the actual process is to strip a duly elected Democratic Party Senator of his or her seniority?

That is, if I wanted to strip Joe (or anyone else) of his seniority what needs to be done? Specifically, who (or what group) gets to decide? What specific grounds for removal are recognized? How long will the process take?

Does anyone here know?

I’ve been doing some reporting on this, but I can’t write it up tonight. Short answer: first, a secret ballot in the Dem caucus, then supposedly, approval by whole senate. Senators can only vote for a period of time covering their own terms.

OJS #78: This is not snark, but in the passage below, what do you mean by “attuned”? To what, for what purpose, how? To me it seems attuned to being, and correctly being taken for abject, clueless chumps, or ‘lets see if we can weasel out a Senate majority with this weasel’ weasels. How is being attuned in this way good?

“You can say they are a bunch of cowards and be correct, but the political calculus of taking such a step on a presumptive event happening in the future is not in the nature of these extraordinarily attuned political denizens.”

but… if the Lieberman shunning is really strong, and the Lamont support is really strong, I’ll take it.

British troops abandoned a major base in southern Iraq on Thursday . . . a move that anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called the first expulsion of U.S.-led coalition forces from an Iraqi urban center.
“This is the first Iraqi city that has kicked out the occupier!” trumpeted a message from Sadr’s office that played on car-mounted speakers in Amarah, capital of the southern province of Maysan. “We have to celebrate this occasion!”. . .
“By no longer presenting a static target, we reduce the ability of the militias to strike us,” [the British military spokesperson] said. But he rejected Sadr’s claim that the British had been defeated and pushed out of Amarah. “It’s very difficult to claim a victory without causing significant casualties.”
The mood was quite different in Amarah, where jubilant residents flocked to Sadr’s office to offer their congratulations. Drivers in the street honked their car horns in celebration. Some prepared to take to the streets to rejoice.

Somewhere, you just know Wolfowitz is getting a bit teary eyed, muttering into a cracked mug of cheap whiskey, “those should have been MY flowers…”

All politicians are “attuned” to the need to survive politically. This is their measure of what risks they are willing to take. Politics is a game of risk measurement and risk taking. They prefer not to take risks with a negative reward ratio. Their calculus of the possibilities constitutes their “attunement” to what they perceive in the political lanscape. If their attunement leads them to take a cowardly position, well that’s what they will do.

Bless you! I may be crazy, but they’ll have to find other evidence. And fashion? pshaw!

This is only house we’ve ever owned. We had one chance to change fuel when we finally replaced an elderly furnace a few yrs ago, & we stuck with oil. (apparently a good decision in disguise at the time in OH because, as soon as the gas lines were connected in our area, natural gas prices soared in spite of all advertisements & predictions – surprise surprise)

Fireplace is all we’ve got (e.g., no serious stove, etc.), & it’s more of a mind-comfort sorta thing, as well as a HUGE luxury item for the 2 kitties – overall probably tries to pull out more heat than it makes, so we have the glass doors, tend the flue without fail, close most heat vents elsewhere when it’s going & turn furnace way down etc., – all done occasionally in winter, just to enjoy the nostalgia.

Most of the downed trees on our property simply feed the carpenter ants, thence the Pileated Woodpeckers, who are trying to decide whether to stay around, or not, on our little bitty bit of conservation easement-protected woodland, surrounded by galloping slueburbia.

Jane and I cannot be online every minute of every day. (As it is, I get little enough time for my family and myself these days because we are so busy.) We rely on our volunteer moderators to keep the discussion moving along — and by and large they do a great job for us. Lately, there has been a lot of questioning of what it is that they and Jane and I and other do — but you know, I’ve been thinking that perhaps we should just allow all the spam, and nastiness and everything else creep into a thread or two so everyone could see how things COULD be without all the work that everyone puts in behind the scenes.

It’s a thankless job, to moderate — you are accused of taking things too far by half the readers, and accused of not doing your job quickly enough by the other half. I have to say that I am personally very happy to have them all — because my life would be that much more exhausting without them.

Someone in a thread yesterday (I think) said something about in days of yore, someone from the caucus would be deputized to deliver the message and a weapon or poison or some such thing and the traitor would be expected to go into a room and privately finish themselves off. In Japan it would be sepuku.

Someone needs to go pay Joe a visit and tell him to do the “honorable” thing.

Problem is that Joe is long past being honorable.

What will happen is anybody’s guess, but he sure is doing quite a job of finishing himself off.

The fact that, in a time where Dems are desparately hoping to regain the House, Lieberman refuses to endorse not one, not two, but all three Dems running for Congress in his state – that’s pretty big, or, more accurately, pretty small of him.

Pach — that is really what I was looking for. Thanks! I hope you stay on this, especially the sad little detail of only being able to vote on someone who post-dates your presence in the senate. Does that mean when Lieberman was originally elected (18 years ago?) or just that no one elected for the first time since 2000 can participate?

Someone in a thread yesterday (I think) said something about in days of yore, someone from the caucus would be deputized to deliver the message and a weapon or poison or some such thing and the traitor would be expected to go into a room and privately finish themselves off. In Japan it would be sepuku.

Someone needs to go pay Joe a visit and tell him to do the “honorable” thing.

Problem is that Joe is long past being honorable.

What will happen is anybody’s guess, but he sure is doing quite a job of finishing himself off.

joe seems to be self destructing, his non-combatant line was a joke, why make him a martyr now. Democrats would do better by saying poor joe, he must have eaten more of that chicken hawk feces that the president has been spreading. Of course, some can come up with more political correct terminology. joe’s prize should be his concession speech.

Now that would be justice, the kind he deserves so richly, the kind that we would be so very happy to see.

Al Gore, sir, please ask Joe to give up his status as a member of the Democratic Party.

And Senator Reid, you can yank Joe’s seats any time now. There would be no need to worry about these seats being at risk for caucus with Republicans if they were simply taken out of play. Any use they have for leverage is now gone.

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 — Russia’s defense minister said Friday that it was premature to consider punitive actions against Iran despite its refusal so far to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium as the United Nations Security Council has demanded.

Although Russia agreed to the Security Council’s resolution on July 31, Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov’s remarks made it clear that Russia would not support taking the next step that the United States and Britain have called for: imposing sanctions against Iran or its leaders over its nuclear programs. The Council set Aug. 31 as the deadline for Iran to respond to its demand.

Russia has repeatedly expressed opposition to punitive steps, even as President Vladimir V. Putin and others have called on Iran to cooperate with international inspectors and suspend its enrichment activity.

But on Friday Mr. Ivanov went further, saying the issue was not “so urgent” that the Security Council should consider sanctions and expressing doubt that they would work in any case.

I posted this on an earlier thread, in reaction to Lieberman’s “I’m a non-combatant” pronouncement:

I must have missed Joe’s update – the one where he explains that he IS, really, a Democrat, only not on the ballot, because he lost when he was a Democrat on the ballot, but he’s a Democrat in his heart, but he can’t support the Democrats running for the House, because then how would he explain not being able to support the Democrat running for the Senate, because – that’s right – he’s running against THAT Democrat, and to be FAIR, he really shouldn’t SAY anything, but oh, pardon him, he has to run off to Groton with a couple of Republicans who are on the ballot, because he has to pretend he is just being Senator Joe, savior of the sub base, while he is actually campaigning, but if there’s an event where the Democrats will be, he can’t be there even if he doesn’t say anything, because really, how would that look? – but he does promise if he wins that he will caucus with the Democrats because he already votes with them 90% of the time, and he is secretly hoping that if he does win, and somehow we take control of the Senate, he will be named chairman of some committees where – guess what? – he will be able to flex his super-duper bi-partisan muscles that can reach aaaallll the way across the aisle and hold off any investigations that might hurt the Republicans who have been so, so supportive.

Since this pretty much sums up his conflict in whether he is or is not a Democrat, I think it won’t be long before his Democratic persona asks his CT for Lieberman Persona to resign from the committees he/they are on…

“I’m a non-combatant,” Lieberman declared. “I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race.”

Oh, that does say so much! 1) Lieberman is focused on Lieberman 2) “non-combatant” Lieberman… oh ho. A friend of mine went to visit Joe in DC to talk to him about environmental issues a good time back, and unexpectedly was recieved by a former squash partner… who said… blah blah blah, but he’s a terrible Hawk. And this was 10 years ago. Non-combatant war-mongering Lieberman. Beginning to sound a lot like… Bushco. (”beginning” = snark, BTW).

Gore, Feingold, Edwards. There are some really good Democrats out there for 2008. Why are we being force fed Hillary? And who’s behind the force feed. Besides Hill and Bill of course. Is it just the DLC? Are other forces at work here that I just don’t understand?

Senators put in their preferences to the Steering and Coordination Committee made up of the Senate Leader, Whip, and others. Each Senator is required to serve on two A committees and may serve on one B committee and any number of C committees. Of the A committees, Democratic Senators are allowed by their Conference to serve on only one of the Super As: Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations. The Steering Committee passes its nominations to the Democratic Conference which approves it and sends it on to the Senate where it is incorporated into a resolution. Each party pretty much stays out of the selection process of the other. Seniority on a committee usually follows length of service in the Senate but doesn’t have to.

So as has been said above, the Democratic Conference could strip Lieberman of his seniority anytime they wanted. If a Senate resolution was needed to make it official, this could be appended to any resolution and it would be dangerous and unprecedented for the other party to interfere.

My question would be how this would affect things not at the committee level but at the subcommittee level. With little time left in this Congress, Senators just might feel it wasn’t worth the bother.

Pach, imm, the quote below is from a Susan Haight AP article.“….On Thursday, the registrar of voters in Lieberman’s hometown of New Haven rejected a petition from a group of peace activists to eject Lieberman from the Democratic party because he’s running for office with his own party.

The law allows for expulsion from a party if the party member runs for office as part of another political party. Some experts said that expulsion would be up to the local registrar of voters and the local party chairman.

Had the registrar accepted the petition, a hearing could have followed in which Lieberman would be required to argue that he still follows the ideals of the Democratic Party.

“The Democratic Party is founded upon principles of inclusion and diversity of opinion and the promotion of debate,” Democratic registrar Sharon Ferrucci said. “I do not intend to summon anyone enrolled in my party to defend the good faith and bona fide nature of their affiliation with the Democratic Party.” Bold is mine.
If the Democratic party either at the local or National level decides to formally acknowledge that Joe has left the Democratic party, they have to be very careful. Joe will try to portray himself as the victim.

BobbyG- semester’s about to start, and I have 9 new lectures to write. Nothing compared to dealing with family/ parent stuff, tho. I have not been keeping up on my reading of FDL threads as much as in the past. But, I did see something about AC, expired (not) liscence tag, etc. I hope you are doing something to keep yourself sane. Much love. VG

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker’s proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals.

That decision is made at the beginning of every new congress. Can the caucus really change the assignements at any time?

Let us say I really wanted Dodd to be stripped of his seniority — just a majority of the caucus could do that at any time?

Also, it strikes me that the other party (which is currently the majority) would be more interested in preventing Lieberman from having his seniority stripped than afraid of any precedent — especially considering the rare if not unique quality fo a party stripping its own member of seniority at any time other than at the constitution of a congress.

p.s. BobbyG- my downstairs toilet flooded last night- thankfully only water, and not “turds that won’t flush”. I did recall that earlier great line of yours, amidst the mess!!! So funny. Did you say “Leaverman is that turd that won’t flush?”

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker’s proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals.

Yeah, I heard this tonight, and almost drove off the road…and what had me yelling at the radio (again) is that his comment was phrased as though this was the first credible proposal he had heard of…as if Kerry and Feingold and other Democrats had not already come up with plans for withdrawal. Which made him look even more like he has been completely disconnected from the Democratic Party for waaaay longer than just since the primary.

Most of our leading Democrats are fear-driven. They aren’t leaders used to taking bold steps. They will wait until conditions on the ground in CT change to the point that Lieberman’s candidacy is no longer viable. Then they will raise their timid voices. They are afraid of alienating him and driving him into the Republican camp. Most of them aren’t bright enough to realize that he is already there.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker’s proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals.

“As I’ve said to you over and over again, the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better it’s going to be for the Iraqis and us, but if we leave too soon for reasons of American politics, it’s going to be disaster for the Iraqis and for us,” he said.

He’s just said the sooner we get out, the better it will be for everyone, and it will be a disaster for everyone.

punaise- I don’t listen to NPR very often, but CarTalk is a fave. I didn’t see your earlier ref. As a scientist, I enjoy Car Talk, because the discussion is usually “hypothesis-driven”. Not to mention sponsors Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

Pelosi’s got some odd dynamics going on. As Dem leader in the House, she’s got every right to be more than a little ticked at Joe for not just backing away from the Dem House candidates in CT but also actively campaigning with their republican opponents. On the other hand, as the rep from SF, she’s had to speak not only for herself but also those members of the Dem caucus who don’t want to be labelled as “SF democrats” either because they are more conservative or represent more conservative districts. (Although IMHO, “SF Dem” is a badge of honor – right TeddySF, punaise, and the rest of us out here?)

Bottom line – I think she’d like to do it, she’d really like to do it, but she’s got to be second or third, not first.

Boxer? Feinstein? Don’t make me laugh.

An alternative to booting Joe completely would be to “censure” Joe for rejecting the party primary result and working against the House Dems in retaking control of that body. If done now, it might make Joe think twice about any repeat campaign appearances at the very least. It also puts the onus back on Lieberman, to answer the question “are you or are you not a Democrat?” If the censure carried with it a warning – veiled or otherwise – that continued rejection of the party would likely result in further sanction when the next Senate organized itself (ie, office in the basement, last choice of committees, etc.), it might get Joe to either put up or shut up.

This kind of resolution might get some of the Senate Dems off the fence, and it’s the kind of thing they could put out there without feeling like they’ve kicked someone out.

Barbara Boxer cited her “loyalty and friendship” with RGJoe when she campaigned with him (thanks, Maura!). She owes her supporters the benefit of a two-way street. Surely Senator Boxer’s friendship with RGJoe couldn’t trump her desire for a House that could investigate and possible impeach this President.

Please forgive a moment of blogwhoring. If you wanted to participate in that Political Spectrum blog article I am working on, please click on my name, and go to my blog, and scroll down and read the instructions (should take someone about 5ish minutes of their time). I will stop tracking new data this Sunday night, the 27th.

If you already did the questionnaire and reported the results, thanks for helping!

punaise- I don’t listen to NPR very often, but CarTalk is a fave. I didn’t see your earlier ref. As a scientist, I enjoy Car Talk, because the discussion is usually “hypothesis-driven”. Not to mention sponsors Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

the “credits” at the end of the show are the best part (polling by Marge Inovera, etc.). my earlier reference was towards the end of the “horsey” pun thread this morning (PDT), regarding my substantial contribution to its descent in to silliness: “well you’ve done it again; wasted a perfectly good hour…”

Bill Clinton should do it. He campaigned for Joe when Lieberman needed it most. Unlike Joe, Bill appears to be willing to abide by the results of a Democratic democratic process. If Bill is silent and does not rebuke Joe, it is as good as endorsement because people will assume he has not changed his mind from his meddling primary endorsement.

A national movement to strip Joe of seniority before the election seems practically undoable. And therefore it is a negative drag on the concept of positively assisting Ned to win.

You beat me to my point. If the first call to shun Joe got all the support of, oh, say, the resolution to censure Bush, that would probably do more harm than good. And there’s a real seat at stake here. Now, if the leadership could whip the caucus into shape behind the scenes first – that would really be something.

If you ever listen to Garrison Keillor, read this short piece that will make your gooseflesh and your ire rise– read the rest when you can.

In the end, what we crave is reality. The woman crying on the 83rd floor was real. Our countrymen died real deaths on a warm September morning, and then, to avenge them, even more have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. In our hearts, we know we’re on the wrong road, the road to unreality, but the man says to stay the course. And now, as November nears, congressmen who have supported the war, no questions asked, find it convenient to admit to having “questions” about it. “We are facing a difficult situation,” they say. They are “troubled.

I think it will be probably John Kerry. It seems that he has been the most critical of Lieberman so far and he is eager to get support if he runs again in 2008.

I have to say that whoever calls first for Lieberman’s expulsion will score points with me and I will consider voting for him/her in the democratic primary in 2008 (if he/she will be running for president of course).

Assignments and seniority are different. Senators must serve on two A committees. If a Senator is independent, he or she caucuses with the party they feel closest to and get their assignments through that conference.

As regards seniority, Republicans have a fairly standardized seniority system. Democrats don’t. In my reading of the Sourcebook link in my previous comment, stripping someone of seniority in a committee assignment is not a procedure that is exactly foreseen. OTOH they make it clear that seniority in a committee is not an absolute in the Democratic Conference but flows from the Conference’s deliberations. So if the Conference wished to chastize a member, I think it would certainly be able to do so and not have to wait until the beginning of the next Congress.

The Republicans would not be likely to interfere because the Golden Rule of politics is what goes around comes around and interfering in the Democratic Conference would invite similar interference in their own if and when they were in the minority.

Nobody is talking about it much, but doesn’t it seem that Schlesinger is going to come under huge pressure to get out of the race to the advantage of Lieberman? I would think Rove will pull out every trick he knows to make that happen…

I think it will be probably John Kerry. It seems that he has been the most critical of Lieberman so far and he is eager to get support if he runs again in 2008.

I have to say that whoever calls first for Lieberman’s expulsion will score points with me and I will consider voting for him/her in the democratic primary in 2008 (if he/she will be running for president of course).

What Kerry can do tomorrow is ask Lieberman where he’s been. Where was he when his own party spoke out? Why did he criticize Murtha? Or Feingold? Or Kerry? And if he thinks this is a good idea now, why did he criticize Kerry last week, for echoing Cheney’s criticism of Dems? And didn’t Lieberman, in his debate with Lamont, repeatedly criticize Lamont for inventing new positions on Iraq? Time to replay that tape.

Lieberman is going to be providing his own rebuttuals. “Who is Joe Lieberman?”

VG, I like the way you’re thinking. I’m not crazy about AWOL, because it’s a military term (like “deserter”) and suggests a stature and backbone that Joe never had.
I suspect Joe is having a real tough time, relative to being a three-term incumbent U.S. Senator, at generating excitement, crowds, media attention. I think Dems have to hold Joe accountable, I’m just flopping around looking for a way to do it that doesn’t leave him too much room to make himself the victim, what Joe appears to be best at.

Perhaps I had a wicked childhood,
Perhaps I had a mis’rable youth.
But somewhere in my wicked, mis’rable past
There must’ve been a moment of truth.
For here you are, standing there,
Loving me.
Whether or not you should.
So, somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good.
Nothing comes from nothing
Nothing ever could
So somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good.

The Tappett Brothers use it as a gag. The person in Harvard Square use it as a gag too. I don’t think there is really a law firm of that name.

Looks like the lady from Tennessee who was head of the oxymoronically named “W for Women” could use a little help from the good folks at Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.

-GSD

The entire Republican Party is in meltdown. Not to mention the Wicked Witch of the Right had a bucket of water tossed on her! Conrad Burns in Montana just had his top money-man implicated in some stinky money hijinx. There is also news about George Felix “Frenchie” Allen Jr. and how his “flag collection” was rather, err, small.

Early to bed for zen on a school night, hope you guys have plans for lots of fun this weekend.
ccmask, good to see you, sending good thoughts your way.
Remember to check in with the Subway Serenade who we heard today is hospitalized and had surgery

Perhaps I had a wicked childhood,
Perhaps I had a mis’rable youth.
But somewhere in my wicked, mis’rable past
There must’ve been a moment of truth.
For here you are, standing there,
Loving me.
Whether or not you should.
So, somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good.
Nothing comes from nothing
Nothing ever could
So somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good.

Hey Darkblack!! On this point, my students rarely know what to make of me. During my first class in Criminal Law, I always make them discuss the poem, Law Like Love by Auden. The point I try to stress is that community standards depends on the community you keep. Or, as Lou Reed says, “In the name of family values you must ask, ‘Whose family?’”

“I’m a non-combatant,” Lieberman declared. “I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race.”

Oh, that does say so much! 1) Lieberman is focused on Lieberman 2) “non-combatant” Lieberman… oh ho. A friend of mine went to visit Joe in DC to talk to him about environmental issues a good time back, and unexpectedly was recieved by a former squash partner… who said… blah blah blah, but he’s a terrible Hawk. And this was 10 years ago. Non-combatant war-mongering Lieberman. Beginning to sound a lot like… Bushco. (”beginning” = snark, BTW).

Haven’t both the Senate Dems and Senate GOP realized that Lieberman will caucus with whoever he’s of best use to? And therefore he has no loyalty but to himself? Should either Senate Dems or GOP leadership expect his loyalty in a close vote to organize their House in 2007?

OT: I read in New Orleans City Business that there is a real shortage of poll workers for the upcoming election. Since being a poll worker is a way to “fight the right” and all that, I thought I would post the link to the article here for NOLA folks. If you can volunteer please do so.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election said Friday that his voting to end debate on the Alitio nomination was an “error in judgement” and he would immediately resign from the “Gang of 14″ if re-elected to the Senate for a fourth term.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election said Friday that his voting to end debate on the Alitio nomination was an “error in judgement” and he would immediately resign from the “Gang of 14″ if re-elected to the Senate for a fourth term.

You dear attractive dewy-eyed idealist,
Today you have to learn to be a realist.

[He]
You may be bent on doing deed of daring due,
But up against a shark, what can a herring do?

[She]
Be wise, compromise.

[He]
Compromise, and be wise!

[She]
Let them think you’re on their side, be noncommittal.

[He]
I will not bow my head to the men I despise!

[Other He]
You won’t have to bow your head to stoop a little.

[She]
Why not learn to put your faith and your reliance,
On an obvious and simple fact of science?

Refrain

[She]
A crazy planet full of crazy people,
Is somersaulting all around the sky.
And everytime it turns another somersault,
Another day goes by.
And there’s no way to stop it,
No, there’s no way to stop it.
No, you can’t stop it even if you tried.
So, I’m not going to worry,
No, I’m not going to worry,
Everytime I see another day go by.

[He]
While somersaulting at a cockeyed angle,
We make a cockeyed circle ’round the sun.
And when we circle back to where we started from,
Another year has run.

[Both]
And there’s no way to stop it,
No, there’s no way to stop it,
If the earth wants to roll around the sun.
You’re a fool if you worry.
You’re a fool if you worry,
Over anything but little number one.

[He]
That’s you!

[She]
That’s I!

[He]
And I!

[Other He]
And me!

[He]
That all absorbing character.

[She]
That fastinating creature.

[Other He]
That super special feature,

[All]
Me!

[He]
So every star on every whirling planet,
And every constellation in the sky,
Revolves around the center of the universe,
That lovely thing called, I.

[All]
And there’s no way to stop it.
No, there’s no way to stop it,
And I know, though I cannot tell you why (sigh).
Just as long as I’m living,
Just as long as I’m living,
There’ll be nothing else as wonderful as I.
I! I! I! Nothing else as wonderful as I!

Cozumel – you are rippin’ it tonight! What’s sad/hilarious is that fake news release wasn’t too far out of the realm of possibilities. I fully expect to see him offering to sell one or more of his children if ONLY he can keep his precious Senate seat…

{{{Oh, and a Happy, Happy Birthday to one Virgo from another (8/28)…}}}

I keep alternating between wanting Reid to hit Joe over the head with a chair, and just letting Joe self-destruct, without feeding the “divided Democrats eat their own” meme. Perhaps the right tack would be for some senior, statesmanlike Dems to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that it’s a shame Joe left the party. Say it over and over. Al Gore would be good.

Is it just coincedence that Sharon Ferrucci, the Democratic voter registrar who refused local Democratic activists attempt to have Lieberman removed from the Democratic registry, shares the same last name of Ralph A. Ferrucci the Green Parties candidate for Senate? Are they trying to throw the race to Lieberman? Someone needs to look into this connection.

Sort of like the tip of the tail deciding it would be a good idea to cut off the dog.
Now that the voters in CT have begun the process of ‘purging’ Joe Lieberman they should be happy,but they’re not. You just can’t please some people.

In the world of the warrior, seppuku was a deed of bravery that was admirable in a samurai who knew he was defeated, disgraced, or mortally wounded. It meant that he could end his days with his transgressions wiped away and with his reputation not merely intact but actually enhanced. The cutting of the abdomen released the samurai’s spirit in the most dramatic fashion, but it was an extremely painful and unpleasant way to die, and sometimes the samurai who was performing the act asked a loyal comrade to cut off his head at the moment of agony.

I got a DCCC fundraising form-letter the other day, and I wrote on it, “Get rid for Joe L., and we can talk.” And attached no money, since thanks to FDL and several other most-excellent blogs, I can just donate direct.

I doubt it will do much good. But that’s my opinion, so they can blow me.

some folk have suggested that a sitting US Senator should do the “right thing” and do himself in in classical Japanese or Roman fashion by self-evisceration. Kinda blood-thirsty it seems to me. It’s not usually a recommended solution in a democracy, ya think?

some folk have suggested that a sitting US Senator should do the “right thing” and do himself in in classical Japanese or Roman fashion by self-evisceration. Kinda blood-thirsty it seems to me. It’s not usually a recommended solution in a democracy, ya think?

some folk have suggested that a sitting US Senator should do the “right thing” and do himself in in classical Japanese or Roman fashion by self-evisceration. Kinda blood-thirsty it seems to me. It’s not usually a recommended solution in a democracy, ya think?

I just want “good Americans” who “love” this country to do the “honorable” thing and support the winner of his party’s primary.

some folk have suggested that a sitting US Senator should do the “right thing” and do himself in in classical Japanese or Roman fashion by self-evisceration. Kinda blood-thirsty it seems to me. It’s not usually a recommended solution in a democracy, ya think?

*ilson

It is but a figurative metaphor for what he seems to be doing to himself, albeit not in an honorable fashion. In times past, it would have been literal, but in the back rooms of the senate, many are suggesting that the “powers that be” take Joe aside and have a talk with him. The imagery just harkens back to historical or philosophical precedent. At least that was my point. I can’t speak for anyone else.

Joe should do the honorable thing and drop out of the race. The window is rapidly closing and there is little if any honor left to him.

VG, I like the way you’re thinking. I’m not crazy about AWOL, because it’s a military term (like “deserter”) and suggests a stature and backbone that Joe never had.
I suspect Joe is having a real tough time, relative to being a three-term incumbent U.S. Senator, at generating excitement, crowds, media attention. I think Dems have to hold Joe accountable, I’m just flopping around looking for a way to do it that doesn’t leave him too much room to make himself the victim, what Joe appears to be best at.

Joe is a double agent. Lying/using each side to further his own agenda.

If anyone’s going to be first, I predict it will be Senator Reid, or the person who is his successor (Hillary?). Anywho, as folks have observed, it’s his call at the moment.

The scenario cleter mentioned, some “retired” pol like Al Gore making the suggestion publicly that Lieberman has left the party, forcing him to either confirm or deny it, is a definite possibility. A party that had it’s act together probably would do that.

way OT: my little Fidelito, the runt I saved, is being taught how to fight by his older brothers Hugo and Evo. Lots of barking and snapping and grunting and flopping around. The big dogs are so gentle in their “pretend fighting” with the lil puppy. Pitbulls having fun can scare some folk …

Deb, this isn’t an intellectual discussion about the meaning of honor in sixteenth century Japan. This is a political campaign in which we are dealing with unscrupulous demogogues and a complicit, unquestioning media. The last episode was equally defensible as metaphor — I defended it as such — but it cost us. It cost Jane.

Just so you all know how the current news is playing in Peoria, or more precisely CT, this is a transcript from local WTNH TV’s 6:00 p.m. news. You can also watch it with the video link there as it was shown on TV.

Lieberman calls Lamont ‘great distortionist’

(New Haven-WTNH, Aug. 25, 2006 Updated 6:06 PM) _ The latest flare-up in the Senate race came Friday as Joe Lieberman pointed to his record of bringing federal dollars to Connecticut, and as Ned Lamont met with one of Lieberman’s old friends. Lieberman grasped for a new description of his rival and came up with the “great distortionist.”

Joe Lieberman met with construction workers, industry representatives and leaders of chambers of commerce under a stretch of the I-95 Pearl Harbor Memorial/Q-bridge so he could talk about all the federal money he helped to bring to the state for road and bridge work.

At about the same time Ned Lamont was emerging from a meeting with New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Chappaqua, New York.

“He’s a terrific candidate I think he will be a great senator,” Clinton said. “I think on nearly every issue we are closely aligned.”

Incidentally, if you watch the video, you’ll really see Lieberman “grasping.” The transcript doesn’t show the pauses and hemming and hawing.

If anyone’s going to be first, I predict it will be Senator Reid, or the person who is his successor (Hillary?). Anywho, as folks have observed, it’s his call at the moment.

The scenario cleter mentioned, some “retired” pol like Al Gore making the suggestion publicly that Lieberman has left the party, forcing him to either confirm or deny it, is a definite possibility. A party that had it’s act together probably would do that.

Technically, behind the scenes that is, wouldn’t it be Durbin’s job as whip to be the caucus enforcer? I know he wouldn’t do anything publicly, but it would seem to be his job to break the news to Joe that his schtick was no longer working and it was time to say sayanara. Then others like Kerry, Gore, Russ, whomever, would go public.

Loty, you did such a bang up job on 8/8, we’ll have to do it again in November. I’ll volunteer to get all the confetti and streamers and music and Senator Lamont posters together. We probably have to get the back porch cleaned up again.

Pach — that is really what I was looking for. Thanks! I hope you stay on this, especially the sad little detail of only being able to vote on someone who post-dates your presence in the senate. Does that mean when Lieberman was originally elected (18 years ago?) or just that no one elected for the first time since 2000 can participate?

Thanks again

Congress starts a new session every year. They can’t vote on the status of someone who is not from their year. So, for example, senators who are not running for reelection cannot vote on caucus membership for the next term. Lame ducks before the new session cannot vote on membership status for the coming session.

Technically, behind the scenes that is, wouldn’t it be Durbin’s job as whip to be the caucus enforcer? I know he wouldn’t do anything publicly, but it would seem to be his job to break the news to Joe that his schtick was no longer working and it was time to say sayanara. Then others like Kerry, Gore, Russ, whomever, would go public.

Probably, but Lieberman has quite a bit of prestige. He’s been in the Senate for three terms, and was the VP nominee. I suspect it would work better if it was someone like Gore or President Clinton who did it in this case.

Now, who does things behind the scenes is another matter, but as we’ve seen with Sen. Dodd, the subtle approach isn’t too effective with Joe.

Deb, this isn’t an intellectual discussion about the meaning of honor in sixteenth century Japan. This is a political campaign in which we are dealing with unscrupulous demogogues and a complicit, unquestioning media. The last episode was equally defensible as metaphor — I defended it as such — but it cost us. It cost Jane.

I’ll take this one on the chin.
My idea.
It’s not always about honor and fairplay. Joe Lieberman has made a mockery of himself, and the Democratic party, by association.
Taken literally as to call for Joe to do bodily harm to himself is ridiculous.
Poking fun at Joe isn’t.

Bill Clinton should do it. He campaigned for Joe in the primary, now it’s time to collect.

Harry Reid should do it. C’mon, give ‘im hell, Harry! He has to uphold party discipline in the Senate, and Joe is way out of line.

Howard Dean should do it. He’s the party boss.

Chris Dodd should do it. Joe is messing up his turf.

John Kerry should do it. Ted Kennedy should do it. Dick Durbin should do it. Evan Bayh should do it. Barack Obama should do it (Joe owes him, too). Barbara Boxer should do it (same reason). What the hell, Joe Biden should do it.

Come on, folks. It’s time to make “Democrat” mean something again. Just do it.

Busted @338
I think we were on the same wavelength at about the same time. I wish it were about honor because then Joe would do the right thing and bag it. Sadly, he has none. And yes, it times past there would have been an honorable out which we are not suggesting that Joe pursue, just making fun of a really sad character. I guess it isn’t nice to punch a guy when he’s down, but he really does need to be crushed so we can all get on with working on all of the other races that are begging for attention.

Personally, I don’t think this could possibly have the impact of that which shall not be named, but what do I know.

Joe is a greedy little opportunist who just wants to hold on to the money spigot..relatively understandable but not really condoned by us fellow humans. However, what he is teaching us is that this new gang of fascist neocons won’t go easily.. the repugs will challenge the tally in all races they lose and will do anything to gum up the transition.

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

Democrats have a bit tent, but no party on Earth has a tent so big as to accomodate a senator who calls criticism of the head of the opposition, “sedition.”

The last episode was equally defensible as metaphor — I defended it as such — but it cost us. It cost Jane.

Where did you ‘defend…it as such’, exactly?

From Aug. 2nd (the day that the blackface graphic was inserted into Jane’s HuffPo post) to Aug.9th (The day after the Lamont primary win) there are no posts by anyone using the handle ‘inthedoghouse’ at all. Nothing.

So unless you were using another handle in that far-off long ago, you were penultimately uninvolved with the controversy and its aftermath.

I know who my supporters and compatriots are on this blog, and whom among the readership find my work problematic, and to be charitable I doubt that you are in the former group. That status earns you no ill will from me, but please don’t misrepresent your role in events that you were not a party to.

As to whether something ‘hurts Jane’ or not, perhaps you should leave that up to Jane to decide.

Poor Joe, the Establishment is now quietly moving to shut him down. It began with his inability to get Dem campaign support (i.e., internet website)and now it’s his money supply. Drip, drip … that’s the sound of poor Joe’s money spigot being turned off.

Next, we’ll see Dem leaders, one by one, slowly but surely, and then faster and faster, come out strongly and loudly for Ned Lamont as the political snowball of Lamont’s Dem support gathers speed much like a snowy avalanche cascades down those “turning-Aspens-covered” mountains in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the ones that the crackpot reporter Judy and her indicted felonious friend “The Scooter” so admire and remember. ;-)

the ‘me’ part of ‘we, the people’ calls for lieberman’s expulsion from the democratic party. i mean, is hanging with republicans the stuff of democracy….while creating another party, of one, to vie against the democrat, ned lamont, selected by connecticut democratic votersto be their (our) representative on the world stage.

Is it fair to say that Sore Loser Joe is, for lack of a more precise word, a turncoat–well, a traitor? Another top ‘Dem’, Mr. Marshall ‘Bullmoose’ Whitmann (ties with the DLC?), thinks that such talk is Stalinistic. See his site. Curious comparison, that one. He obviously has no historical knowledge of Stalin otherwise he wouldn’t talk so frivously. He’s only holding up a mirror image of comparisons of Republicans to Nazis. Wow, we are descending into childish dumbness. Yes, children can be very dumb, like adults, despite child beauty pageants. There is no getting around the fact that Liebermann is actively undermining Democratic candidates for his own benefit, and it is mindboggling that the party—THE PARTY, oh! echoes of Stalin again—could put up with it. The Rebuplican party—YES, ANOTHER PARTY, but with stricter discipline—jumps for joy, while most of the Democratic leadership squirms. Lieberman will drop out, for sure. Maybe, in Stalnistic fashion, the DLC will orchestrate Lieberman’s disappearance. Better yet, in good old U.S. democratic fashion the voters will dump him.

Despite the careful comments in public — who wants to find an axe-wielding Joe Lieberman banging on the door in the middle of the night? — it seems Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton are loaning some big guns to Ned Lamont’s brave attempt to rid U.S. politics of Vinegar Joe.
Reports the Kos:

Stephanie Cutter, a key member of Reid’s vaunted war room, has been in Connecticut for the last week and plans on helping out through November. She worked as Deputy Communications Director in the Clinton White House, communications director at the DNC in 2003, and communications director for John Kerry (after the late-2003 staff purge which revived his primary campaign).

And, earlier today:

Hillary Clinton and her senior advisor and spokesperson Howard Wolfson met with Ned Lamont and his campaign manager Tom Swan …. Howard Wolfson will be joining Team Ned.

Hillary offers Lamont more than words [Daily Kos]

Top Reid consultant also working for Lamont [Daily Kos]

end Wonkette quote

The key to all of this discussion is to WIN in November! (and not let LIEberman drag down the CT congressional races)

I’m disappointed that Dean didn’t do so on Hardball this past week. Instead he said that if Joe wins, he will be welcomed….the Dems have a big umbrella.

I view Dean as a person unafraid of saying what needs to be said, which makes this even more troubling.

At dKos, I was slapped down by a few and ignored by most when I expressed my views. After all, Dean is a hero, who can do no wrong. Others attempted to explain where I went wrong in my assertions (as I requested), but I still have a difficult time understanding why Dean (of all people) would undermine the will of the voters. Hell, isn’t that what elections are all about?

At least, Dean should have deferred answering the question posed by Matthews. We can expect Matthews to use Dean’s words again and again as this election moves forward. What a bite on the ass.

In 2000, the presence of a third party candidate, Ralph Nader, no doubt played a role in the defeat of Vice President Gore and Joe Lieberman. Now Joe Lieberman is risking our party’s claim on his Senate seat by running as a third party candidate himself. Recent news reports detail the GOP’s interest in supporting just such an effort. It’s time to draw a line.

I committed myself to supporting the Democratic nominee for the US Senate in Connecticut and I ask you to do likewise. Because too much is at stake with our troubles abroad and at home, we cannot play games this Election Day. That’s why I call on all loyal Democrats to join me in urging Senator Lieberman to drop his bid for the Senate as an Independent and endorse the duly nominated Democrat.–Wes Clark

According to CT law, Joe left the party automatically when he chose to run for office as a member of a new party. Sharon Ferrucci, the registrar of voters, has taken it upon herself to leave him on the rolls against all law and president. Another case of election tampering, this time by a Lieberman Democrat. See my diary at DailyKos for more.

Pach, imm, the quote below is from a Susan Haight AP article.“….*SNIP*The law allows for expulsion from a party if the party member runs for office as part of another political party.
*SNIP*
“The Democratic Party is founded upon principles of inclusion and diversity of opinion and the promotion of debate,” Democratic registrar Sharon Ferrucci said. “I do not intend to summon anyone enrolled in my party to defend the good faith and bona fide nature of their affiliation with the Democratic Party.” Bold is mine.

If the Democratic party either at the local or National level decides to formally acknowledge that Joe has left the Democratic party, they have to be very careful. Joe will try to portray himself as the victim.

That last paragraph sums up why the Dems are unlikely to expel Lieberman. More likely that Lieberman will undergo a political conversion on the election equivalent of the Road to Damascus.